How Devices Transform Voting

  • Wolter PietersEmail author
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 20)


In this contribution, I analyze how electronic voting shapes democratic forms of voting from the perspective of technological mediation. First of all, I introduce the requirements that are generally accepted to apply to the voting process. I then zoom in on the history of electronic voting in the Netherlands, explain how the country finally abolished electronic voting, and recast the problems encountered in terms of implicit requirements. I then generalize the notion of implicit requirements to include broader forms of changes in human experience and existence, by referring to the philosophical work on technological mediation. Applying this theory to electronic voting, especially Internet voting, I identify challenges that we need to face, should electronic voting come back on the political agenda.


Polling Station Security Requirement Election Process Vote Process Electronic Vote 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Single Transferrable Vote



This chapter is based on the author’s PhD thesis La volonté machinale: understanding the electronic voting controversy, written at Radboud University Nijmegen (Pieters, 2008). The author wishes to thank Bart Jacobs for useful comments on a draft of this chapter.


  1. Adviesommissie Inrichting Verkiezingsproces (2007) Stemmen met vertrouwen [Voting with confidence]. Den Haag, Adviescommissie inrichting verkiezingsproces.
  2. Asquith HH (1888) The ballot in England. Polit Sci Quart 3:654–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benaloh JC, Tuinstra D (1994) Receipt-free secret ballot elections (extended abstract). In Proc. 26th ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing (STOC), ACM, pp 544–553Google Scholar
  4. Drechsler W (2003) The Estonian e-voting laws discourse: Paradigmatic benchmarking for central and Eastern Europe.
  5. Gerlach J, Gasser U (2009) Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting, Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2009-03.1 Harvard UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Gonggrijp R et al (2006) Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting computer: a security analysis.
  7. Gross C (1898) The early history of the ballot in England. Am Hist Rev 3:456–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hermans LMLHA, Van Twist MJW (2007) Stemmachines: een verweesd dossier. Rapport van de commissie besluitvorming stemmachines. Den Haag, Commissie Besluitvorming Stemmachines.
  9. Ihde D (1990) Technology and the lifeworld. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Latour B (1999) Pandora’s hope: essays on the reality of science studies. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Luhmann N (2005) Risk: a sociological theory. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  12. Madise U, Vinkel P, Maaten E (2006) Internet voting at the elections of local government councils on Oct 2005.
  13. Norberg-Schulz C (2000) Architecture: presence language and place. Skira, MilanGoogle Scholar
  14. Oostveen AM, Van den Besselaar P (2005) The effects of voting technologies on voting behaviour: issues of trust and social identity. Soc Sci Comput Rev 23:304–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Park JH (1931) England’s controversy over the secret ballot. Polit Sci Quart 46:51–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pieters W (2003) A pragmatic phenomenological approach in environmental planning. Master’s thesis, Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society. Enschede, University of TwenteGoogle Scholar
  17. Pieters W (2006a) Acceptance of voting technology: between confidence and trust. In: Stølen K et al (eds) iTrust 2006. Springer, pp 283–297. Lecture Notes in Computer Science vol 3986Google Scholar
  18. Pieters W (2006b) Internet voting: a conceptual challenge to democracy. In: Trauth et al (eds) Social inclusion: societal and organizational implications for information systems: IFIP TC8 WG8.2 International Working Conference. Springer, pp 89–103Google Scholar
  19. Pieters W (2006c) What proof do we prefer? Variants of verifiability in voting. In: Workshop on Electronic Voting and e-Government in the UK. Edinburgh, e-Science Institute, pp 33–39Google Scholar
  20. Pieters W (2008) La volonté machinale: understanding the electronic voting controversy. PhD thesis, Radboud University NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  21. Pieters W, Becker MJ (2005) Ethics of e-voting: an essay on requirements and values in internet elections. In ethics of new information technology: proceedings of the sixth international conference of computer ethics: philosophical enquiry (CEPE2005). Centre for Telematics and Information Technology, Enschede, pp 307–318Google Scholar
  22. Pieters W, van Cleeff A (2009) The precautionary principle in a world of digital dependencies. IEEE Comput 42:50–56Google Scholar
  23. Pieters W, van Haren R (2007) Temptations of turnout and modernisation: e-voting discourses in the UK and the Netherlands. J Inf Commun Ethics Soc 5:276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smits M (2006) Taming monsters: the cultural domestication of new technology. Technol soc 28:489–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Van der Hof S, Prins C (2008) Personalisation and its influence on identities, behaviour and social values. In: Hildebrandt M, Gutwirth S (eds) Profiling the European citizen: cross-disciplinary perspectives. Springer, Chapter 6, pp 111–127Google Scholar
  26. Verbeek PPCC (2005) What things do: philosophical reflections on technology, agency and design. Pennsylvania State University PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Vollan K (2005) Observing electronic voting, Technical Report 15. NORDEM 2005.

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors 2011 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Telematics and Information TechnologyUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations